There was a very interesting program on Nova this week about Global dimming. What is that, you ask? It turns out that the amount of sunlight that is reaching the surface of the Earth has been decreasing over the past decades. The program made the case that this is due to reflective cloud formation caused by polluting particles in the atmosphere.
Now you might be asking yourself, wait a minute, less sunlight, doenst that mean cooling temperatures? Yes it does. And the program made the point that the global dimming has in fact been responsible for the relatively mild increase in global temperatures caused by green house gases, since the cooling from particle pollution partially offsets the warming.
There was a statement by the narrator that in the US and Europe, particulate pollution, (and other forms of pollution that affect health) has been decreasing for decades (Hooray, finally someone is presenting that small, insignificant, minor fact, besides me), BUT....the cooling that was caused by American and European particle pollution has been replaced by Indian and Chinese particle pollution, which is still increasing.
AND...(this might sound strange, but bear with me), the program suggested that current attempts to limit particulate and other unhealthy pollution in Asia, if successful, will have the negative impact of stopping the cooling and allowing global warming to go into overdrive.
Wow. Looks like we really cant win. If we cut down on particulates and SO2 etc, by adding scrubbers to Chinese smokestacks, global warming will get worse. Unless of course, we simultaneously make major cuts in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions.
What I take away from all this is that things are pretty complicated out there. Who knew there could be a positive aspect to pollution? And that it might not be so good to stop it?
I will save giving my own perspective on this situation for later. Suffice it to say that all of our media and culture can be counted on to find the worst possible aspect of every situation and new development. For those (2 or 3) of you eagerly awaiting my next book, I think it will be called "Doom: The hyponotic Attraction of Predicting Catastrophe"
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 34
I like to be cautious..several ex's have said so.
The truth is; No one has the meagerest of a clue and we caught in the middle while they whistle in the dark.
At one time, climate change "skeptics" were using the global dimming phenomenon as an argument for the notion that the climate change "numbers do not add up". Well, now that the numbers do add up, have the skeptics apologized? Nope.
At this point, I don't think science is advanced enough to fully measure global pollution and it's effects on the atmosphere.
Scientific theories can usually be proved only in controlled environments.
Trying to extrapolate to global conditions and making assumptions on the amount of pollutants countries are releasing is essentially impossible.
Pollution is a side-effect of industrial revolutions.
As more third world countries are getting outsourced jobs, their pollution increases exponentially as they develop their countries through increased personal revenue.
The world in really in a bind, hopefully we will soon see global green initiatives.
After posting this I noticed a similar article (in the "you might also like" section) by Richard B. posted over a year ago, so clearly this was a repeat.
Chris
You raise an important issue on a scientific basis, namely the steady state or equilibrium differences between different gases and particles in the atmosphere. This is way way out of my understanding, but I assume someone has studied it.
I should say that the idea of NOT reducing particulate pollution because it helps with global warming is a nonsensical idea, that (I hope) no one takes seriously. Particultes, SO2, CO, and other toxic air pollutants really do kill people and cause serious illness.
I am also opposed to any idea of global engineering such as artificially using cloud formation or partoiuclates to lower the temperature. That is very dangerous, since as I have said many times (and the Nova special sort of hinted at) global cooling is far more serious and deadly than global warming. We simply dont know enough to avoid triggering a new cooling period.
Clearly the solution is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a goal that is feasible and practical (As Chris, Steve B. and others have been saying for quite some time here) as part of a general energy conversion away from oil. There is no need to panic. We just need to be sure that this happens, as I am confident it will.
That the mixture of gases and particulates temporarily cancels out each other's effects, leading potentially to a sling-shot effect of accelerated warming once the particulates subside, is about the most depressing news possible, to one who might want their grandchildren to inhabit the planet some day. What a boon to the Jim Inhofes of the world.
We will need the 21st Century equivalent to the WPA to fight our way out of the coming economic depression (ok, friggin' deep recession if you are in denial!). Let us hope and advocate for programs that implement renewable energy plans across the nation.
We made the mess. Looks like we'll have to clean up the whole mess at once!
Sorry all. I cannot help being optimisitic, its just in my nature.
And we'll make mistakes. So we should learn from those mistakes and keep trying. Because we do need to clean up the mess we've made.
BUT....the cooling that was caused by American and European particle pollution has been replaced by Indian and Chinese particle pollution, which is still increasing.
Isn't that what I was saying on another thread some time ago?
Stephanie, again right on. We used to hear that putting scrubbers on smokestacks would bankrupt industry and cause a depression. Not. Later we found that energy efficiency saves money for corporations. This is why a win win solution is real.
Gather this week that basically argued that climate change is not a big deal. True, myself and several others such as Steve B jumped on it to provide a science based rebuttal, but the climate change denial squad is still busy. They are alive and well on gather. The arguments go like this: they find a dentist from Kazakhstan who has written a science paper ridiculing the human role in climate change. OR they toss out something that says it's all a matter of sun spots, CO2 has nothing to do with it. Or they say, hey it's just a global conspiracy of communists to destroy our way of life and our standard of living, we could never afford to replace fossil fuel with something else. Unfortunately, with gas cheaper than spit now, there are alot of uninformed consumers who agree with that POV. Right here on gather, if you type up a post arguing that gas is getting too cheap, many americans are fooling themselves again and buying SUVs in the unrealistic hope that gas will stay this cheap, people are just not going to accept that. For many of us, the POV is, yes I am worried about climate change, but it's somebody else's problem, I just want to top off my Hummer. We are alarmed except for the time of day that we gas up- we are not alarmed then.
You don't fix climate change that way, my friends.
Since the Sun and Earth have been here for billions of years, and current incarnation of continents, most of the animal life, and us, for millions, it would seem that things that we could be doing on a planetary scale are having some effect which we do not control, modulate, understand or even understand ... and that, now that we know about it, seems like a bad decision that needs review ... that is the lens I see the discussion of Global Warming in.
Most of the complaints against the discussion of this, ridiculing the very idea of catastrophic planetary effects, always seem to come from a group of people that mostly care about the maintenance of their income and authority.
The nature of our being is that we look for what seems like causal associations and act on them in some way - playing God. It's the way we do things, but on a planetary scale there is a lot of unrealized risk in this mode of behavior.
This must have been a repeat. Nova aired this program in Sept, 2007, and I wrote about it at that time.
One of the points I made then was that global dimming exposes the "scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s" myth, perpetrated by climate "skeptics". As it turns out, the few scientists thinking an ice age was possible were looking at the cooling effects of pollution. Scientists were also aware of the warming effects of CO2, but it was not clear which would dominate.
The program also pointed out that the pollution patterns of Europe affected the rainfall patterns in Africa, contributing to the drought in north-central Africa. As Europe has reduced it's pollution, some of that drought situation has ameliorated. So it's not so simple as "Who knew there could be a positive aspect to pollution? And that it might not be so good to stop it?" So I was very happy to see your later statement: "I should say that the idea of NOT reducing particulate pollution because it helps with global warming is a nonsensical idea, that (I hope) no one takes seriously."
And I agree strongly with your assessment here:
"Clearly the solution is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a goal that is feasible and practical as part of a general energy conversion away from oil. There is no need to panic. We just need to be sure that this happens, as I am confident it will."
I am more optimistic since November 4. It remains to be seen, however, how much of the move from oil is a move to (so-called) clean coal. We should also be moving away from coal. I am very curious what percentage of the new administration's "energy mix" will be to push policies that will spur growth in the solar, wind, geothermal and biomass arenas.
That pretty much sums it up. Good news does not sell. I stopped watching the news and started doing my own independant research. I get so tired of spin and sophistry!
Great article!
Hmmm, you next book ""Doom: The hyponotic Attraction of Predicting Catastrophe" has already been written ... by Andy Grove, CEO or Intel ... it's called " Only the Paranoid Survive." :-)